Mehta v. Vict. Partners

• Decision Date: 02 September 2022
• Docket Number: 2:21-cv-01493-CDS-VCF
• Parties: Kirti A. Mehta, Plaintiff, v. Victoria Partners et al., Defendants.
• Court: United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada

Kirti A. Mehta, Plaintiff,
v.
Victoria Partners et al., Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01493-CDS-VCF

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 2, 2022

ORDER

CRISTINA D. SILVA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Presently before this Court are motions brought by both parties, including Defendants'^[1]Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9).^[2] Also before the Court are Plaintiff Kirti A. Mehta's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (ECF No. 45), Motion to Amend (ECF No. 47), Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 49) of the Court's denial of Mehta's previously filed motion for injunctive relief, Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 53), and Motion for a Hearing (ECF No. 60). After careful consideration of the moving papers filed by the parties, I grant Defendants' motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiff's motions. However, I grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint pursuant to the instructions in this Order.

I. Relevant Procedural History

In August of 2021, Mehta, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants setting forth what this Court liberally construes^[3] as allegations of negligence, discrimination,

1

misconduct/retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See generally ECF No. 3. In sum, Plaintiff contends he is entitled to monetary damages for the way he was treated at the Park MGM, an MGM property, and alleges that he was overserved alcohol, cheated via unfair slot machines, discriminated against (in the form of not receiving complementary Bruno Mars concert tickets) due to his national origin, and unfairly charged resort fees. Id.

On October 13, 2021, Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss the complaint. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff filed a timely response and a supplement to that response. ECF Nos. 11; 12. Defendants filed a reply. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed a surreply. ECF No. 14. I resolve the pending motion to dismiss herein.

In March and April of 2022, Mehta filed motions requesting preliminary injunctive relief and temporary restraining orders against various combinations of Defendants for their casino operations. ECF Nos. 24; 29; 36; 38. He sought to enjoin MGM Resorts from operating under state gaming licenses, serving complementary drinks, or providing guests with access to ATMs. ECF Nos. 24; 36. He also sought to enjoin all casino operators nationwide from charging resort fees at their attached hotels. ECF No. 38.

On April 13, 2022, this entire case was administratively reassigned to me. ECF No. 35. I denied Mehta's requests for injunctive relief via written order. ECF No. 44. Mehta filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, ECF No. 49, to which Defendants filed opposition. ECF No. 54.

Plaintiff also filed two motions to amend the complaint. ECF Nos. 45; 47. In his first motion to amend filed on June 21, 2022, Plaintiff represents that his first complaint cited to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 in error, and that it should be corrected to reflect in its place, violations of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. ECF No. 45 at 2-3. Plaintiff did not attach a proposed first amended complaint to his filing. Mehta did attach a document from the American Gaming Association discussing regulations and statutes in various states across the country. ECF No.

2

45-2. Two days later, Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend the complaint, in which he asks this Court to amend the complaint to add new Defendants. See generally ECF No. 1-2. The proposed second amended complaint cites several federal, state, and local violations as causes of action. See ECF 47-1. Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motions to amend, asserting that I should deny the motions because (1) Mehta seeks the amendments in bad faith and (2) they were untimely filed with the purpose of avoiding a potential adverse ruling on Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. ECF No. 51 at 4-5. Defendants further argue that the proposed amendments are futile and would prejudice them. Id. at 5-6.

Mehta also filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 53. Defendants filed an opposition to that motion. ECF No. 57.

Finally, Mehta filed a motion for a hearing, requesting the opportunity to appear before the Court with respect to his motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 49, of this Court's denial of injunctive relief. See generally ECF No. 60. Mehta alleges that his wife, Yolanda, attempted to book a room at the Park MGM but a casino host cancelled the reservation and served the couple with notices of trespass. Id. at 2. Mehta attached both notices to his motion. ECF No. 60-1 at 1-2 (notice to Kirti Mehta); id. at 3-4 (notice to Yolanda Mehta).

II. Legal Standards

The following sets forth the applicable law and authority regarding the pending motions before the Court. As a general matter, I liberally construe documents filed by pro se litigants and afford them the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Nonetheless, despite Mehta's pro se status, he must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court of Nevada. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se parties must still comply with rules and case law); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that “pro se litigants are not

3

excused from following court rules” (italics added)).

A. Motion for Reconsideration

A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to present arguments already raised; that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for an unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Maraziti v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). “In order for a party to demonstrate clear error, the moving party's arguments cannot be the same as those made earlier.” Glavor v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F.Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citing Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Pursuant to Rule 60(b), reconsideration is appropriate only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an adverse party's fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, released, or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); see also Kona Enters, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law).

A party can obtain relief under Rule 60(b) only upon an adequate showing of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Maraziti, 52 F.3d at 254. A Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within a reasonable time: for reasons (1) through (3), that time is not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Errors of law are

4

cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1). Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999).

This district's local rules regarding civil cases require that any motion for reconsideration “must state with particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. Changes in legal or factual circumstances that may entitle the movant to relief also must be stated with particularity.” LR 59-1 (emphasis added).

B. Motions to Amend

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure advises that the Court should freely grant leave to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.” Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2001)(quoting Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990)). “[T]he ‘rule favoring liberality in amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se litigant. Presumably unskilled in the law, the pro se litigant is far more prone to make errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.'” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)) (italics added).

There are five factors used to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; (4) futility of amendment; and (5) whether the party has previously amended its pleading. United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011). Among these factors, prejudice to...